Institutions, Opportunism and Prosocial Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence

Antonio Cabrales, Irma Clots-Figueras, Roberto Hernán González, P. Kujal
{"title":"Institutions, Opportunism and Prosocial Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence","authors":"Antonio Cabrales, Irma Clots-Figueras, Roberto Hernán González, P. Kujal","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3618848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Formal or informal institutions have long been adopted by societies to protect against opportunistic behavior. However, we know very little about how these institutions are chosen and their impact on behavior. We experimentally investigate the demand for different levels of institutions that provide low to high levels of insurance and its subsequent impact on prosocial behavior. We conduct a large-scale online experiment where we add the possibility of purchasing insurance to safeguard against low reciprocity to the standard trust game. We compare two different mechanisms, the private (purchase) and the social (voting) choice of institutions. Whether voted or purchased, we find that there is demand for institutions in low trustworthiness groups, while high trustworthiness groups always demand lower levels of institutions. Lower levels of institutions are demanded when those who can benefit from opportunistic behavior, i.e. low trustworthiness individuals, can also vote for them. Importantly, the presence of insurance crowds out civic spirit even when subjects can choose the no insurance option: trustworthiness when formal institutions are available is lower than in their absence.","PeriodicalId":331900,"journal":{"name":"IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"59","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3618848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

Abstract

Formal or informal institutions have long been adopted by societies to protect against opportunistic behavior. However, we know very little about how these institutions are chosen and their impact on behavior. We experimentally investigate the demand for different levels of institutions that provide low to high levels of insurance and its subsequent impact on prosocial behavior. We conduct a large-scale online experiment where we add the possibility of purchasing insurance to safeguard against low reciprocity to the standard trust game. We compare two different mechanisms, the private (purchase) and the social (voting) choice of institutions. Whether voted or purchased, we find that there is demand for institutions in low trustworthiness groups, while high trustworthiness groups always demand lower levels of institutions. Lower levels of institutions are demanded when those who can benefit from opportunistic behavior, i.e. low trustworthiness individuals, can also vote for them. Importantly, the presence of insurance crowds out civic spirit even when subjects can choose the no insurance option: trustworthiness when formal institutions are available is lower than in their absence.
制度、机会主义与亲社会行为:一些实验证据
长期以来,社会一直采用正式或非正式的制度来防止机会主义行为。然而,我们对这些制度是如何被选择的以及它们对行为的影响知之甚少。我们通过实验研究了对提供低水平和高水平保险的不同级别机构的需求及其对亲社会行为的后续影响。我们进行了一个大规模的在线实验,我们在标准的信任博弈中加入了购买保险以防止低互惠的可能性。我们比较了两种不同的机制,私人(购买)和社会(投票)机构的选择。无论是投票还是购买,我们发现低可信度群体对制度有需求,而高可信度群体对制度的需求总是较低。当那些可以从机会主义行为中受益的人,即低可信度的个人,也可以投票给他们时,就需要较低水平的制度。重要的是,即使在主体可以选择不保险的情况下,保险的存在也会排挤公民精神:当有正式机构时,人们的信任度低于没有正式机构时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信